I suppose I ought to try to wrap up a release one of these days. I've
been thinking about the possibilities, but I'm not sure about the
current state of a couple of things. And what I'd most like to see
right now is some stabilization. So I'll list my current thinking:
Prerequisites for 0.0.9 rele
Steve Fink wrote:
Hm. Sorry. I assumed that if it worked for me, it would work for
anyone. Robert has fixed one permission problem recently; can you give
it another try?
I tried: RT/perl: Modify ticket #18034
Set patch status to "Applied"
Results
* Permission Denied
And with: RT/perl
Steve Fink wrote:
I suppose I ought to try to wrap up a release one of these days.
- Artificial goal: I want the list of pending patches to be smaller
than one screenfull before I release. Fortunately, I have a large
screen.
I did set 2 of them to "Applied". I'll wade through my
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Keyed access
> - Another discussion that's gone over my head. Leo has a scheme to
> dramatically reduce the number of instructions, at the cost of
> requiring a couple of opcodes for keyed accesses; Dan sa
Where is the most definitive list of known Perl6 (not Parrot) builtin
types?
The following have been specified/implied by the A/Es:
scalar
bit (== bool? == boolean?)
num
int
str
bigint
bignum
bitarray (maybe)
ref
rx (or regex,rule?)
code
classname
Object
arra
On 20 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote:
: However it means that the binary ops become:
:
: $a || $b # logical or
: $a .| $b # bitwise or
: $a && $b # logical and
: $a .& $b # bitwise and
: $a ! $b # logical xor
: $a .! $b # bitwise xor
:
: That makes logical xor look a little inconsisten
# New Ticket Created by Jerome Quelin
# Please include the string: [perl #18064]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18064 >
Parrot currently fails test 75 of t/pmc/pmc.t with --gc-debug but passes
without it :
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Where is the most definitive list of known Perl6 (not Parrot) builtin
: types?
:
: The following have been specified/implied by the A/Es:
:
: scalar
: bit (== bool? == boolean?)
We could always call them "umu", which
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
> I suppose I ought to try to wrap up a release one of these days. I've
> been thinking about the possibilities, but I'm not sure about the
> current state of a couple of things. And what I'd most like to see
> right now is some stabilization. So I'll list my
Steve Fink writes:
>> >I don't know exactly who has the permissions to do these things, but
>> >I'm pretty sure that if you have commit access then you also have RT
>> >futzing access.
^^^ this isn't true. The permissions are seperate (but obviously
should be related.)
-R
At 7:41 PM +0200 10/23/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Possible (feature/architectural) goals for 0.0.9
* PMC cleanup
- Leo did a huge amount of work on this, but there are a few things left:
- array.pmc still autocreates something called "PerlUndef"
At 4:51 PM -0500 10/20/02, Allen Short wrote:
The ops described in PDD 6 and docs/parrot_assembly.pod for
scratchpads appear to be subtly different from the ones actually in
core.ops. In particular, i was led astray by the docs referring to the
"newpad" op and core.ops implementing "new_pad". whic
At 10:21 AM +0200 10/23/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
And second, while you are at it, could you provide some PBC
versioning, which get checked at packfile load time as discussed in
"fingerprinting PBC files".
Yes, *please*. We need this info in the header and it needs to be
checked on load time
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> So changing own requests seems to be ok.
That's what I just observed too. I can change my own tickets, but I
can't do anything to any others.
--
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:40:40AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> "returns" is synonymous with "of", mostly so we can use "returns" on
> subroutines, because "of" sounds weird:
>
> my int sub foo () {...}
> my sub foo () of int { ... }
> my sub foo () returns int { ... }
I read this and I
At 8:23 AM +0200 10/22/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Juergen Boemmels wrote:
... Also no vtable function has to
decide wether its called with 1, 2 or 3 keyed elements.
Yes, another advantage, I didn't think of. Currently all _keyed
vtable calls have to check, it the key is really there. This co
At 4:57 PM +0200 10/19/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
struct {
can;
has;
isa;
union {
scalar_vtable;
aggregate_vtable;
object_vtable;
};
VTABLE;
Rather than a union, there'd be a set of pointers to various vtable pieces.
But a scalar (PerlInt) doesn't hav
> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On top of which, Damian has expressed an interest in ! for a
> superpositional xor.
Which would behave how, exactly?
Luke
Steve Fink wrote:
> - Stratospheric rehydrocalibration amplifiers for the .NET people
> (er... or something; I can't remember what they needed)
The ability to embed arbitrary data in a pbc file under a
named section. This data needs to be readable by the program
when it runs, but is ot
Hi,
Perl is my favorite language, and I'm eagerly following Perl 6 development. So
I would like to ask this question here. Sorry if I'm being inconvenient...
Do you think that Lisp macros make the language more powerful than others (eg
Perl)? I mean, do they really give a competitive advantage, o
> > On top of which, Damian has expressed an interest in ! for a
> > superpositional xor.
>
> Which would behave how, exactly?
! the way people expect, I fear.
-Miko
> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:43:08 -0300
> From: Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi,
>
> Perl is my favorite language, and I'm eagerly following Perl 6
> development. So I would like to ask this question here. Sorry if I'm
> being inconvenient...
>
> Do you think that Lisp
On top of which, Damian has expressed an interest in ! for a
superpositional xor.
Which would behave how, exactly?
Well, that's still a matter for conjecture.
N-ary xor isn't particularly useful, because binary xor naturally generalizes
to: "an odd number of these N operands are true". (Hint:
At 7:43 AM +1000 10/24/02, Rhys Weatherley wrote:
Steve Fink wrote:
- Stratospheric rehydrocalibration amplifiers for the .NET people
(er... or something; I can't remember what they needed)
The ability to embed arbitrary data in a pbc file under a
named section. This data needs to
Steve Fink:
# - requires sprintf* to work on PPC. (Brent -- what's the status?)
Dan said that he would give me an account on a PPC machine so I could
debug this, but that hasn't happened yet.
# * Exceptions
# - I haven't been paying much attention to developments on this,
# alth
Nicholas Clark:
# I read this and I think
#
# sub ... () of Borg { }
sub ven () of Nine { ... }
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding regexen Configure)
Wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in
New York and his head is meowing
Larry Wall:
# : > I also like the idea that ~ is entirely freed up for some other
# : > nefarious use.
# :
# : Yeah; how'd that happen? Seems like not too long ago we
# were short of
# : punctuation symbols, and now you've got a spare one lying around.
#
# Pity there's no extra brackets lying a
Brent Dax wrote:
Can the new nefarious use be concat? Pretty please?
There was a brief period 18 months ago when tilde *was* the designated
Perl 6 concatenation operator.
I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it return to that role, now that
it's not needed elsewhere. And, of course, that would ac
Hello all,
I've been trying to figure out why I can't build the latest Parrot. It
comes down to dod.c. I get this:
dod.c(481) : error C2059: syntax error : ')'
dod.c(484) : error C2100: illegal indirection
dod.c(485) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before ')'
dod.c(489) : error C206
Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
Really what I've been wishing for was an operator (or whatever) to let me do an
s// without changing the variable.
I would hope/expect that that's what the subroutine form of C would do.
That is, it takes a string, a pattern, and a replacement string,
and returns a new
At 22:58 on 10/23/2002 EDT, Erik Lechak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fix the errors then It gets all wierd on the def PARROT_STACK_DIR. So
> I tried to figure out that problem.
>
> Anyways, I am on Win XP using VC++. I look in Config.pm and I see this
> '#define PARROT_STACK_DIR'. It's not
Damian Conway wrote:
Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
Really what I've been wishing for was an operator (or whatever) to
let me do an
s// without changing the variable.
I would hope/expect that that's what the subroutine form of C would
do.
That is, it takes a string, a pattern, and a replacement s
Damian wrote:
> (b) the symmetry of:
> Logical:&& || !!
> Bitwise:.& .| .!
> Superpositional: & | !
> is important...mnemonically, DWIMically, and aesthetically.
When I
Erik Lechak:
# While trying to figure it out I rewrote Config.pl and some supporting
# files. They were just a little too complex for my taste. I have
# included the files because I don't feel confident enough to
# make them a
# patch.
Can you please *please* PLEASE generate a patch? 'cvs d
[I'm afraid it looks like this didn't actually get to perl6-announce
last week. Better late than never...]
Perl 6 summary for week beginning 2002-10-07
This is yet another Perl 6 summary, documenting what has happened over
on the perl6-internals (where Parrot, the virtual machine that will
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Rhys Weatherley wrote:
> Martin D Kealey wrote:
> > [Frank Farance's paper] "specification based extended integer range"
> > [at] http://wwwold.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/docs/c9x/extended-integers/.
> Very interesting proposal. I wish they had adopted it. Would
> have saved me
Jürgen Bömmels (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #18056]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18056 >
This patch is the beginning of an effort to make Pack
On Oct-23, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 7:41 PM +0200 10/23/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >>Possible (feature/architectural) goals for 0.0.9
> >>
> >>* PMC cleanup
> >> - Leo did a huge amount of work on this, but there are a few things
> >> left:
> >>
38 matches
Mail list logo
